Skewed Male/Female Ratios in FDR and Philosophy In General.

[MMX2010]

I had this discussion during yesterday's meeting of the FDR NYC Meetup group, and wanted to know what you think. 

 

Two men articulated Stefan's oft-repeated argument that, "If a woman isn't virtuous, then you shouldn't associate with her." 

 

I replied, "That's a great argument, but there's a major problem: she (pointing to the only woman at our table of eight) is the only woman here." 

 

One man re-stated Stefan's argument, and I repeated, "I agree with everything you said, but this doesn't change the fact that she is the only woman here." 

 

I then stated, "One potential solution, which is very scary (and not necessarily correct) is to take a woman who isn't virtuous and turn her into a woman who is virtuous." 

 

A man objected, "That's exactly like a twenty-something woman who falls in love with a drug-addicted alpha male, hoping to change him for the better." 

 

I replied, "No, it's not exactly like that because That Chick follows her animal impulses and no philosophy to do what she wants, but you're a philosophically-sound male.  That doesn't mean that my argument is a good one, but still you're not That Chick." 

 

So my arguments are: (1) If you're a gay man seeking a virtuous life partner through philosophy, you can follow Stefan's advice as stated.  (2) If you're a heterosexual woman seeking a virtuous life partner through philosophy, you can absolutely follow Stefan's advice as stated.  (3) But if you're a heterosexual male seeking a virtuous life partner through philosophy then: (A) IF you follow Stefan's advice as stated, then you will inevitably have to hyper-compete against the rest of the men who want the same thing; see attached diagram.  (B) IF you object that this is unfair / not worth it, you can either stop pursuing virtuous women or complain about the situation instead of following the diagram.  This will just lead you to getting outcompeted by the men who follow the diagram without complaining.  © IF you accept the gender ratios for what they are, then you could follow my scary alternative path: Find a woman who isn't virtuous, and turn her into a woman who is. 

 

I assert (without evidence because I think this statement is established as fact) that these gender ratios are permanently a part of all English speaking, White majority nations.  (This means that to believe that "some day", the ratios will even out is exactly like believing in the future return of Jesus.) 

 

So my questions are: (1) Do you choose the Stefan-advice path, meaning that you choose to hyper-compete against all men OR do you choose the scary-path, meaning that you swim in shark infested waters, hoping to wrestle a shark into a "somewhat tame reformed shark"?  (2) Why? 

 

 

[MMX2010]

Okay, thank you for pointing that out.   

[J. D. Stembal]

You can try, for certain, to teach someone philosophy and virtue, but they have to want to learn it, practice it and hone it. Not a whole lot of women are going to be coaxed down that path successfully. How many are going to be fakers, playing your own game against you? You might as well lay down the ground rules early to save some time.

[Andre1332]

Lately I have been watching his videos on this topic, I too am in search of virtuous woman, and I think he made a very strong case that the goal is not necessarily to find a woman who share the same values, but someone who is capable of rational analysis, and I would argue that the same can be said to frienship and other relationships as well. So, rather than having someone who just happens to have the same conclusions as me, I would rather meet someone who can be intellectually honest, someone who chooses facts and evidence over prejudice and (hopefully) ultimately will take the reality pill (always forget if it was the red one or blue one). That being said, I do agree that its quite scary, but I will say this: while I am willing to try "taming sharks" I wont lower my standards.

 

This site has some really useful features; users can answer an series of questions and you can compare your answer to seek flags (things like their faith or political position). I have found 5 possible matches after searching for a while and I am sharpening my arguments for the philosophical battle.

http://www.okcupid.com/profile/Tathiy?cf=leftbar_match&leftbar_match=1

[MrCapitalism]

My post is going to be "misogynistic" in the classical sense.. but here it is.

 

Philosophy will never overcome Briffault's law/ the female imperative. No increase in price can compensate for a supply shortage, prices serve to allocate and signal, not to create in themselves. This is merely inflation in the dating market. Inflation is a stupid solution.

 

You arguments, while logically correct, I think lack voluntarism. If it is given that there is no negotiable way to increase the quantity of women, then all solutions focus on allocating the ones currently involved with philosophy. This leads to your three outcomes: compete, resign, or switch to a substitute product. All of these answers are framed in terms of a prisoner's dilemma. I think there is a better fourth solution.

 

As men, we are sexual servants to females. Our job is to conquer and provide for the benefit of women, who are ultimately in control of society.

Human history revolves around expendable men creating a habitat which is safe for women, who only then join the men in large quantities, thus greatly changing the structure of society.

 

The skewed gender ratio in philosophy is an indicator that it is currently too dangerous for many of them to partake. In this realm the danger is not physical but emotional. Philosophy is currently more rewarding to men than it is to women, and the ratio is the result. The solutions offered neglect the greatest strengths of men, which is to work together instead of against each other to accomplish a task.

 

I argue that a wider perspective needs to be taken. We need to  cooperate to overcome the challenges which face philosophy so that it can be safe, and productive enough, for women to exploit for their own purposes. Like everything else, when it is acceptable enough for women, the gender ratios will balance.

 

This doesn't mean, "make Freedomain Radio women friendly!" The demand for gender equality only arrives after the environment and benefits have been provided by expendable males. The demand for inclusion is merely an acknowledgement of previous success, that philosophy is finally acceptable enough for women to demand a part.

 

Tell me what you think of this idea.

[PatrickC]

I've always said that if a guy spends all his time at FDR looking for a partner, chances are he will be disappointed. I mean it has happened on more than a few occasions that I know of personally, but granted it's rare. There are also a subset of women that come here with the sole purpose it seems to bag a rational guy. Once successful they move on, eventually dropping philosophy altogether, whilst the guy follows suit. Why they do this I'm not entirely sure, but I've seen it happen more often than not. Well worth a warning I think for young men to protect their hearts from such ladies. Then again they may have come here for the same purpose too.

 

Personally I see the competition as a good thing, an opportunity to step up ones game. And I don't mean 'game' as you see it, but as in my ability to observe and process my feelings when I'm around a woman and my persistence to virtue and philosophical principles. Sounds monk like right? I know that's what some men have told me. The reason I know this is because my desire for virtue is outweighed by my desire to have sex. Some of it comes from prior experience, but mostly it comes from understanding the long term costs to such vacuous and emotionally impenetrable relationships.

 

I've learned to gain a better instinct for discovering virtue in others, including women. I think virtue in women or the desire for virtue let's say extends well beyond the shores of FDR.  Perhaps it's less so for men, which might make the disparate ratio at FDR seem much fairer perhaps (just a theory). Partly why I see this is that many women will often defer to our lead. As in our leading by example. Not because we are manipulating them or attempting to change them, but because they trust us to make good decisions that will enhance their lives.

 

Most of all I think as men we so often negate our personal lives in deference to the desire for a women. You touch on this in the 'lifestyle' part of your graphic. I'd say men should consider this part of their lives the most essential part, which should compliment their philosophical life. Because whether you find a woman of virtue or not, it's your life and happiness that matters most.

[jpahmad]

 There are also a subset of women that come here with the sole purpose it seems to bag a rational guy. Once successful they move on, eventually dropping philosophy altogether, whilst the guy follows suit.

 

Diabolical!

[PatrickC]

Diabolical!

 

Yeah, it's only anecdotal on my part.

[TheW_nderer]

I find it a bit unbelievable that rational women have got it made because it's apparently "raining" rational men. If we really think of the size of the population of rational people in the US and then stretch that over 50 states and thousands of cities, it seems that both men and women are hard-pressed to find someone who is immediately compatible with them philosophically. Therefore, whether male or female, we are all for the most-part going to have to come to grips with the "scary" option in a partner. Especially if we are unwilling to relocate. 

 

Speaking personally, I consider myself a virtuous woman who seeks self-knowledge and companionship, but have found myself still settling for the "fix-me-uppers" due to seeming lack of other options. 

 

So isn't it more realistic for everyone to prepare themselves to find a person who isn't virtuous and turn them into someone who is? What is the incentive that virtuous women have to hold her virtues as the standard by which she is held in regards to relationships if the competition is kept so low? 

[PatrickC]

I find it a bit unbelievable that rational women have got it made because it's apparently "raining" rational men. 

 

If we are talking FDR ratio's then I think the disparity mostly favours women. That said, there is still a proportion of guys here that probably need to work on their virtue a bit more. So relatively speaking, I think it can be as much a disappointment for a virtuous woman as it is can be for men. It's up to all of us individually to deal with the challenges we face in this regard, whether we are male or female.

[J. D. Stembal]

Philosophy will never overcome Briffault's law/ the female imperative. No increase in price can compensate for a supply shortage, prices serve to allocate and signal, not to create in themselves. This is merely inflation in the dating market. Inflation is a stupid solution.

 

...

 

As men, we are sexual servants to females. Our job is to conquer and provide for the benefit of women, who are ultimately in control of society.

Human history revolves around expendable men creating a habitat which is safe for women, who only then join the men in large quantities, thus greatly changing the structure of society.

 

...

 

Tell me what you think of this idea.

 

This is shaping up to be an engaging thread!

 

Briffault's Law, in case some people have forgotten it:

 

 

 

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.”

 

I don't doubt the validity of Briffault's observation as it applies to our animal lineage, but it cannot be considered a complete theory without examining how it was co-opted by the state and religion early in the recorded history of civilization. Marriage is a platform for women to achieve sexual protectionism and forward their own political advancement, through the male proxies of husbands and sons.

 

Of course, feminists have been trying to convince everyone for decades that men raped and pillaged for themselves, and that women suffered the consequences of male destruction and dominance. A woman's weakness is her strength; a man's strength is his weakness. Would men still be waging war if women were to take an extended vacation from the planet? What an thought-provoking proposition!

 

With the advent of state-funded feminism, the oft-maligned false paradigm of the genders is clearly reversed, and the evidence is unmistakable. The proverbial cat is out of the bag, ladies! Women still get to invoke Briffault's Law ("My body, my choice!") while lobbying the state to rape and pillage men who don't play ball on their behalf and call it family policy. Whatever the consequences, men are starting to declare clear boundaries to protect themselves against the vagaries of women. If women don't like men hanging out in back rooms filled with smoke, discussing the current state of the male gender, then write to your politicians about it. Go ahead and use the guns.

 

How often do you see men whining that they can't get laid with the same frequency as David Duchovny? Do you see males complaining about not being able to get access to fresh eggs like Paul Walker? No, we keep our primal desires under our hats and up our sleeves. We certainly don't ask the state for any favors.

 

As for attracting women to general philosophy and this forum, I am indifferent to the rate at which it appeals to women. I know that we will always be welcoming and polite to anyone. You can't always tell the gender of a member by their profile, name or avatar. Women will furtively trickle into the threads over time, but I'm not going to pull any punches, or sugarcoat my message on their behalf.

 

 

I've always said that if a guy spends all his time at FDR looking for a partner, chances are he will be disappointed. I mean it has happened on more than a few occasions that I know of personally, but granted it's rare. There are also a subset of women that come here with the sole purpose it seems to bag a rational guy. Once successful they move on, eventually dropping philosophy altogether, whilst the guy follows suit. Why they do this I'm not entirely sure, but I've seen it happen more often than not. Well worth a warning I think for young men to protect their hearts from such ladies. Then again they may have come here for the same purpose too.

 

Are there many people here looking for a philosophy life partner? I've seen a couple "want to date" threads, but I figured it was men casting a wide inter "net" trawling strategy to maximize their results. I've heard a few callers mention the desire for an FDR-affiliated dating website, but how would that be executed? Honestly, would it work to bring philosophical men and women together? I have some doubts about it.

[TheW_nderer]

If we are talking FDR ratio's then I think the disparity mostly favours women. That said, there is still a proportion of guys here that probably need to work on their virtue a bit more. So relatively speaking, I think it can be as much a disappointment for a virtuous woman as it is can be for men. It's up to all of us individually to deal with the challenges we face in this regard, whether we are male or female.

Yeah. And I almost get that strange sense like I did when I attended church as a kid, that we are working towards some great cause and in the process of helping each other, we're becoming like family; philosophical brothers and sisters in a sense. Which is concerning...

 

I know this is ridiculous, but it somehow feels this way. 

[PatrickC]

Are there many people here looking for a philosophy life partner? I've seen a couple "want to date" threads, but I figured it was men casting a wide inter "net" trawling strategy to maximize their results. I've heard a few callers mention the desire for an FDR-affiliated dating website, but how would that be executed? Honestly, would it work to bring philosophical men and women together? I have some doubts about it.

 

I've never been interested in a dating portal at FDR. Complete waste of time and resources imo. I think getting involved with your local FDR meet up group, if people want to meet and get to know each other better.

[RyanT]

I've never been interested in a dating portal at FDR. Complete waste of time and resources imo. I think getting involved with your local FDR meet up group, if people want to meet each other. 

 

Agreed, and while I don't think it explains away the phenomenon entirely, the 'online-only' nature of much of the community does seem be a major factor in why the gender ratio's are so skewed?

 

...How does that old meme go 'There are no women on the internet'.

[Tweety]

MMX, I'm a little confused by your statement here versus your statement under the topic about appearances and tattoos and a tiny bit curious about what made you change your mind about this.

 

While talking about appearances you held your position about not interacting with people with signs of trauma because they are not virtuous ("I see tattoos as ways of "earning" respect and admiration that do not at all involve the acquisition of talent, intelligence, nor caring/concern for others.") 

You seem to think about it differently now, to the extent that you would be willing to dedicate time to change a clearly non-virtuous woman where you would not give the time to even interact with them before. What made you change your mind?

 

 

 

  © IF you accept the gender ratios for what they are, then you could follow my scary alternative path: Find a woman who isn't virtuous, and turn her into a woman who is. 

 

 

Some random, but a bit related thoughts:

 

This is shaping up to be an engaging thread!

 

Briffault's Law, in case some people have forgotten it:

 

 

 

 

I don't doubt the validity of Briffault's observation as it applies to our animal lineage, but it cannot be considered a complete theory without examining how it was co-opted by the state and religion early in the recorded history of civilization. Marriage is a platform for women to achieve sexual protectionism and forward their own political advancement, through the male proxies of husbands and sons.

 

 

I think Briffault's law has a lot of validity in the animal kingdom, as you also mention. I think it relies on the basic biology of producing eggs taking more resources than producing sperm. What I have found interesting even before finding FDR, is that humans are nearly the only species where females are concerned about their looks and trying to attract males. If you think of nearly any bird species, or even apes, it is the male who shows off his resources in the form of a fancy nest, colourful feathers, a dance or a red bum. Granted human males show their resources as well, but I can't stop wondering when and why did human females start decorating themselves? Was there a shift in the sex-ratio? Was that the point when humans went from rational to irrational?

I'm trying to collect some resources linked to these questions, but haven't gotten far yet. Any help and thoughts appreciated!

[PGP]

Sophist hat on.

One of the things that always bothered me is how people can earn a degree in for example environmental science and then espouse the evils of human activity while driving a jeep and living in a monstrous house heated with kerosene while advocating for "protection" of the environment by banning oil exploration. When I ask them about this, they will say that the work they are doing is qualitatively benefitting the environment and whatever cost they are incurring to the environment is justified on this basis. It takes a long time to get this out of them.

 

If we accept that we live in a gynocentric society, then automatically, females are "in" the society from birth. Men are "outside" the system and must choose to enter it. They must have the willingness and the ability to contribute to the structure to maintain gynocentricity. Hence rites of passage.

 

As I have said previously, I think feminism has done me a big favour in revealing female nature and the nature of the society. It is not that feminists want to tear down the structure of society and replace it with a system based on merit, it is that they want to "change" it to their benefit, using the tools available (government). With Hoff-Summers (not that familiar with her work), there is a peculiarity of a feminist that is expressing an objective analysis. Similarly, I have heard Karen Straughan say that if feminism was about equality, then she would call herself a feminist.

 

A man that enters the structure and has cause to question it and sufficient cause and courage to leave has been a rare phenomenon. Now though, the cause to leave is stronger IMO. Hence MGTOW. 

 

If we had an economic or other collapse, I would have a very difficult time ignoring the plight of women that previously, mindlessly seeked to manipulate the structure to their advantage. It is the silver bullet for a man, a woman in need.

 

TBH, I'm still not sure why  a woman in todays culture would want to leave the structure and seek philosophy. I have seen women writing that they are virtuous but for me, it is the why that matters. Why do something that does not benefit you?

[hannahbanana]

 

If we had an economic or other collapse, I would have a very difficult time ignoring the plight of women that previously, mindlessly seeked to manipulate the structure to their advantage. It is the silver bullet for a man, a woman in need.

 

TBH, I'm still not sure why  a woman in todays culture would want to leave the structure and seek philosophy. I have seen women writing that they are virtuous but for me, it is the why that matters. Why do something that does not benefit you?

I was just thinking something similar to this. I think that there are fewer women interested in philosophy/anarchy - basically ideas that are on the "fringe" of society - because there's really very few reasons for them to question or turn away from the current system. If something is benefiting you, it takes very little effort to ignore the larger over-arching consequences. And as for feminism, many of the issues that they fight for have already been solved within this system, so there is little reason for them to try working outside of it.

 

For me, and for some other women that I've discussed with on FDR, there is usually a common element of feeling separated or disconnected from the majority of people - which I've also heard many men say on FDR as well. It's probably just easier for women to feel accepted by the majority with the way that society runs today: school aged girls may feel more comfortable in school, since over 80% female elementary school teachers; boys, on the other hand, are much more often treated as wild and misbehaving, or are prescribed medication for ADD. I don't know about you, but I'd feel outcast if that happened to me. And that's just one of many examples.

 

So maybe that plays a role as to why there are fewer women around. I can't say for certain, but it makes a decent amount of sense to me.

 

 

As for the main post, I agree that just because a person isn't involved in philosophy, etc NOW, doesn't mean they can't EVER. There's a first time for everyone, and some people are just not exposed to key ideas needed to continue pursuing philosophy. I'm not sure if I agree with saying you can "make" virtuous, since 99% of the work required to become virtuous lies on the actual person becoming virtuous. But that really comes down to semantics, I suppose.

 

I'm actually pretty sure there was a similar thread to this a while back, but I can't remember its name

[J. D. Stembal]

I was just thinking something similar to this. I think that there are fewer women interested in philosophy/anarchy - basically ideas that are on the "fringe" of society - because there's really very few reasons for them to question or turn away from the current system. If something is benefiting you, it takes very little effort to ignore the larger over-arching consequences. And as for feminism, many of the issues that they fight for have already been solved within this system, so there is little reason for them to try working outside of it.

 

For me, and for some other women that I've discussed with on FDR, there is usually a common element of feeling separated or disconnected from the majority of people - which I've also heard many men say on FDR as well. It's probably just easier for women to feel accepted by the majority with the way that society runs today: school aged girls may feel more comfortable in school, since over 80% female elementary school teachers; boys, on the other hand, are much more often treated as wild and misbehaving, or are prescribed medication for ADD. I don't know about you, but I'd feel outcast if that happened to me. And that's just one of many examples.

 

So maybe that plays a role as to why there are fewer women around. I can't say for certain, but it makes a decent amount of sense to me.

 

 

As for the main post, I agree that just because a person isn't involved in philosophy, etc NOW, doesn't mean they can't EVER. There's a first time for everyone, and some people are just not exposed to key ideas needed to continue pursuing philosophy. I'm not sure if I agree with saying you can "make" virtuous, since 99% of the work required to become virtuous lies on the actual person becoming virtuous. But that really comes down to semantics, I suppose.

 

I'm actually pretty sure there was a similar thread to this a while back, but I can't remember its name

 

 

 Thanks for sharing your insight, Hannah.

 

While this isn't true of all women, I do find that many of the women that I have met put a really high value on being liked by others. There are some men like this as well who equate their self worth with the amount of Facebook friends they have collected. I find the thought of having to keep up with hundreds of friends repulsive. I've viewed friends are easily replaceable because I never had any that were worth keeping around me. If they were worth keeping, I probably repelled them with my alcoholism. Taking up the mantle of philosophy is like not washing for a year, and getting a skin infection. You start to reek in a way that's very unpleasant for the majority.

 

Could you share with us some of your motivations for taking an interest in philosophy? Are you frightened at the thought of being considered a social outcast for walking the path of philosophy?

[TheW_nderer]

For me, and for some other women that I've discussed with on FDR, there is usually a common element of feeling separated or disconnected from the majority of people - which I've also heard many men say on FDR as well. It's probably just easier for women to feel accepted by the majority with the way that society runs today: school aged girls may feel more comfortable in school, since over 80% female elementary school teachers; boys, on the other hand, are much more often treated as wild and misbehaving, or are prescribed medication for ADD. I don't know about you, but I'd feel outcast if that happened to me. And that's just one of many examples.

Hannah, 

 

Do you feel that your life was already in a state of isolation before you got into philosophy or was it completely brought on by your philosophical views?

[Kevin Beal]

Stefan doesn't talk about "shoulds," he talks about self-awareness, knowing what you're doing, why you're doing it and the importance of making informed decisions.

Actually he does. He talks about "shoulds" all the time. As he should, being the ethicist that he is. He basically said that the purpose of philosophy is UPB. It's the most important part of the metaphysics that runs throughout the show from the very beginning.

 

Even in this situation, he is talking about a "should", which is that, "this is not an ethical issue, so you should not treat it as if there is an objective "should" to be deduced. However, here are some considerations from aesthetics, and some empirical anecdotes".

 

It's one of the things that makes him different from most other philosophers is that he puts such a strong emphasis on Ethics/UPB. He almost entirely ignores ontology, talks a good amount about epistemology, but it's UPB that is really the meat and potatoes, here. And I agree with him about that importance, which is why I only donate to him. I go to other philosophers for ontology and epistemology, but it's just a curiosity. UPB is where the rubber meets the road.

[shirgall]

If you choose to pursue a non-virtuous relationship, at least understand the costs and benefits of doing so and see if you can live with them (and her).

[hannahbanana]

 

 

Could you share with us some of your motivations for taking an interest in philosophy? Are you frightened at the thought of being considered a social outcast for walking the path of philosophy?

Hmm, good question...I think there are definitely times that I feel afraid to speak my mind about certain topics that are widely accepted here, because I know that people wouldn't like it. But I think it's less about wanting to "fit in," and more about avoiding ridicule or conflict...although I think that those two may be related in a way, in that I can avoid conflict by fitting in. However, I wouldn't say something that I don't think is morally right or true, just because it's the majority opinion.

 

So I suppose I am afraid at times...but do I think I'm doing the wrong thing? Absolutely not. I'm interested in philosophy because I'm interested in what is true about the world. I've always loved science and the scientific method, and I think that that gave me a push in the direction of philosophy. I also like learning about how things work, so I also like hearing about different ideas about how and why people behave, and by extension, how people "should" behave.

 

I feel less bad about being isolated from most people, also, because the few people that I have met who DO share common interests in philosophy give me much more fulfilling relationships, even if they are fewer in quantity.

 

Hannah, 

 

Do you feel that your life was already in a state of isolation before you got into philosophy or was it completely brought on by your philosophical views?

Yes, in fact I think I felt even MORE isolated before. All my siblings are substantially older than me, so I didn't have much connection with them. I wasn't popular in school, people thought I was either weird, too serious, too smart, bossy, things like that. And maybe some of those things were true, but it felt worse when I thought that those opinions mattered more than they did. I was also more isolated from myself, before working on self-knowledge, so that didn't help either.

I was actually thinking earlier that maybe getting involved in philosophy can make you feel LESS isolated, since it makes it easier to meet or hear from people who feel similarly, rather than thinking you are the only one out there who thinks differently.

What do you think?

[luxfelix]

I imagine it would work out similar to an uncanny valley graph [LINK] where any inconsistencies of virtue, or rather pursuit of virtue, will isolate you from philosophers (etc.).

 

Edit: So, I originally posted the link for the graph, but in reading the sections about mate selection and other such theoretical basis, there is a lot in common with both the inherent isolation of the two plateaus across the valley as well as references relevant to the original post.

[J. D. Stembal]

Hmm, good question...I think there are definitely times that I feel afraid to speak my mind about certain topics that are widely accepted here, because I know that people wouldn't like it.

 

I understand that feeling, and it's one that it would behoove us to overcome. We shouldn't be afraid to speak our minds out of fear of controversy.

 

I was recommending a book to woman so that she would read it, and I said something like, "If you can get past all the blatant feminist propaganda, it's actually quite a compelling read." I received no reply, only a cold stare. In that moment, it did not occur to me that insinuating feminism is political propaganda would offend. That's how we should strive to act at most times. If you suspect someone around you is a rabid statist, don't pull any punches for the sake of keeping the peace. Don't hesitate to make them feel shame or question in their beliefs.

[MMX2010]

@Mr. Capitalism - Your post intrigues me the most, and I've had it in mind for days.  But I will reply to it when I feel that I've fully digested and considered it. 

 

 

 

MMX, I'm a little confused by your statement here versus your statement under the topic about appearances and tattoos and a tiny bit curious about what made you change your mind about this.

 

While talking about appearances you held your position about not interacting with people with signs of trauma because they are not virtuous ("I see tattoos as ways of "earning" respect and admiration that do not at all involve the acquisition of talent, intelligence, nor caring/concern for others.") 

 

You seem to think about it differently now, to the extent that you would be willing to dedicate time to change a clearly non-virtuous woman where you would not give the time to even interact with them before. What made you change your mind?

 

 

That thread was a bit of a clusterfuck.  I was exasperated by James Dean's, Josh F's., and Rainbow Jamz' assertions that they have oh-so-awesome relationships with people who have tattoos, because they didn't empathetically acknowledge that I've every right not to follow in their footsteps, that exercising this right has zero moral component, and that their lack of empathy was the primary reason that I wasn't changing my mind.  I am also firmer in my commitment to not associate with tattoo'ed individuals, but I can be "cajoled" into doing so as long as I don't see your tattoos before you've shown a highly admirable part of yourself. 

 

Since I didn't have the confidence, (nor capability, since it's a message board and not a face-to-face interaction), to issue Dismissive Laugh, I argued point-by-point instead.  That won't happen next time. 

 

 

As far as, "What made me change my mind?", there are many reasons.

 

(1) I'm 38, and don't know whether I want to have children.  But if I do, I can't afford to wait around for the gender ratios to even out the same way a 25 year old man could.

 

(2) I'm exasperated by some of the blind spots that the FDR NYC Meet-up group possesses.  When I stated my observation about the skewed gender-ratios, I was met with: (a) A repetition of the argument that it's always better to associate with virtuous people over non-virtuous ones, (b) A reminder that the gender ratios themselves aren't a justification for having a mistress, © A suggestion that the gender ratios themselves are irrelevant, because it's up to me to have my own moral standards, and (d) An uncomfortable silence when I repeated that the gender ratio is what the gender ratio is.  But I tend to pay more attention to important things that are missing, and what was missing was a confident, collected acknowledgement of my argument that would've signaled that they also noticed the skewed gender-ratio and had been considering it for quite some time. 

 

Not noticing such skewed gender-ratios is like not noticing that you've been sitting on *gasp* chairs for the entire meeting. 

 

(3) I've suspected for quite some time that some members of FDR use philosophy to avoid considering important differences between people in order to understand, respect, and profit from those differences.  (The irony is deliciously bitter.)  Thus, "I don't want to have interactions with non-virtuous people!" is a sadly over-blown translation of, "Ewww, you make me uncomfortable!"  

 

Crucially, the first statement implies both that the speaker shouldn't change a single thing about himself/herself and that the recipient (me) should absolutely change some things about myself.  While the second statement is much more easily turned around onto the speaker, as in, "Dude, so what if I make you uncomfortable?  Your discomfort has absolutely no moral bearing on anything I've said or will say, done or will do, thought or will think, felt or will feel." 

 

Also crucially, when the statement, "I don't want to have interactions with non-virtuous people!" is not-at-all about me, it's about the pool of potential marriage partners.  And so, YES, you have the right to refuse further interaction with anyone whom you deem non-virtuous BUT if your "Virtue Radar" is skewed because it interprets ALL of your personal discomfort as signs of non-virtue, then you're going to have a problem meeting the right woman.  And that problem will be you. 

 

(4) Lastly, I brought up the circle diagram in yesterday's Meet-Up and made two identically true statements that got completely opposite emotional reactions.  The first statement, which was visibly agreed with, "You cannot use Money and Six-Pack Abs as an excuse to not develop philosophical strength."  But the second, (which is, again, equally true), which was visibly disagreed with, "You cannot use Philosophical Strength as an excuse to not develop Money or Six-Pack Abs." 

 

One man said, "You don't need Money and Six-Pack Abs to attract a virtuous woman."  And I replied, "Your statement is absolutely true, but it also doesn't empathize with a virtuous woman's desire for Six-Pack Abs and Money." 

 

I'll follow up on that statement at the next Meet-Up. 

 

So, overall, I haven't fully change my mind yet, but I'm much more willing to "turn a non-virtuous woman into a virtuous one" than I was two months ago.  Most of this stems from reading Rollo Tomassi's blog on male/female relationships, which has given me an understanding of Male Leadership and the intense resistance and/or surrender that such Leadership inevitably produces.  But some of this stems just from being 38. 

[Omegahero09]

So my questions are: (1) Do you choose the Stefan-advice path, meaning that you choose to hyper-compete against all men OR do you choose the scary-path, meaning that you swim in shark infested waters, hoping to wrestle a shark into a "somewhat tame reformed shark"?  (2) Why?

 

I think you can do both. Assuming you avoid the completely crazies, finding someone open to learning and is capable of rational analysis you're good. That's all that matters at the end of the day really.

[J. D. Stembal]

MMX, are you recording these NYC meetup discussions? I could have PMed you instead, I realize.

 

Regarding the virtue radar detector being broken, I believe this has a lot to do with personal traumas in childhood creating blind spots. Everyone, on some level, understands all their flaws and the flaws of everyone around them. Therefore, the question then becomes, "Are you willing to identify, isolate, and manage them?"

 

Just because someone's behavior makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean they have done something wrong. It could be that they inadvertently triggered an emotional response in you. This is why RTR exists.

[MMX2010]

MMX, are you recording these NYC meetup discussions? I could have PMed you instead, I realize.

 

Regarding the virtue radar detector being broken, I believe this has a lot to do with personal traumas in childhood creating blind spots. Everyone, on some level, understands all their flaws and the flaws of everyone around them. Therefore, the question then becomes, "Are you willing to identify, isolate, and manage them?"

 

Just because someone's behavior makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean they have done something wrong. It could be that they inadvertently triggered an emotional response in you. This is why RTR exists.

 

I will never record any conversations because that wouldn't be fair to everyone else.  And because I trust my memory. 

 

I both admire and am annoyed by RTR.  I think it's great when you're in a one-on-one conversation with an admirable someone you've known for awhile, but it's fruitless or even downright dangerous to use in a group of strangers.  RTR can also be extremely inefficient  compared to a more confrontational Dismissive Laugh. 

 

My Dismissive Laugh happened in three steps. 

 

The first step occurred well-before the Dismissive Laugh happened.   Here, the group spoke about my non-empathetic, cold, domineering communication patterns for about an hour.  And their major point was that I needed to take responsibility for how my communication style makes more emotional human beings feel.  That bluntness is cold.  That direct honesty, though valuable in its own right, can never be separated from the emotional experiences my words create. 

 

The second step headed closer to the Dismissive Laugh.  Here, another man in the group spoke about his joyful experiences perusing Seduction Literature over the past month: (Rollo, Heartiste).  He said that he most enjoys the unburdening aspect of Seduction.  Beforehand, he thought every misstep with a woman was Totally His Fault and that it was his job to find a Completely Rational Woman.  But after learning Seduction, he has become unburdened from expecting women to behave rationally, and instead caters to her emotional expectations by creating specific emotional experiences with his words, tone of voice, body language, and other factors. 

 

The third step led immediately to the Dismissive Laugh.  Here, the woman in the group (who has studied some Seduction literature) said that she understood what the man's goals are, and accepts that Seduction literature teaches men to create specific emotional experiences for women, but also asserted that he is "damaging his character" (not her exact words, but that was the gist) by engaging in dishonesty.  Furthermore, she rhetorically asked whether constantly tailoring his words to produce specific emotional experiences in others is exhausting. 

 

That's when I dismissively laughed.

 

To her enormous credit, she looked me dead in the face and said, "Please don't laugh like that.  It's very disrespectful." 

 

To which I replied, "I'm sorry.  But there is only one man at this table who very strongly believes in directly speaking the truth, with little focus on creating positive emotional experiences in others.  That person is me.  But I just had the entire group tell me that my preferred communication style is deficient because it doesn't create positive emotions in others.  So I laugh at the contradiction between your advice to me and your advice to him." 

 

To his credit, he added, "So MMX was expressing a frustration at what you all have been saying.  And, you know what, his frustration is valid, right?" 

 

No one objected. 

 

But the absolute best part about this sequence (from her words, to my dismissive laugh, to her objection, to my reply, to his conclusion) is that it took only forty-five seconds!   How wonderful would marriages become if the majority of the less-important conflicts could proceed from Climax to Falling Action to Denouement in less than a minute?  (The hidden bonus is that the faster you solve the less-important conflicts, the more energy you have to manage the more-important ones.) 

 

(More importantly, I could've corrected her final statement in terms of RTR language.  Her statement, "That's disrespectful." is a conclusion, so RTR says that she should've said, "I feel disrespected and diminished when you laugh at me like that."  But I also know that she's been working, with the help of her therapist, towards expressing her needs confidently and assertively.  So watching her say that ... like that ... was like watching a former couch potato snatch lift 300 pounds.  So correcting her language would've been enormously petty.  Instead, I translated what she said into RTR language, and responded as if she used correct RTR language.) 

 

---------------------

 

The potentially dangerous part of RTR occurs during interactions with specific types of people.  AnonymousConservative calls them Rabbits, and I don't yet have the technical knowledge and linguistic facility to succinctly and fully describe them.  But I do understand that an honest person will always use RTR to express their feelings, with little (if any) agenda; and the agenda being furthered will always be morally good (or at least morally permissible).  Whereas a Rabbit will use RTR exclusively to humiliate you, destabilize you, and destroy your confidence all under the guise of, "I feel really frustrated when...." 

 

The differences between an honest person and a Rabbit can be excruciatingly subtle, (especially if you've convinced yourself that you don't need to study Seduction techniques), but I think these are the two key differences.  (1) An honest person understands that His Feeling About The Thing is not necessarily a Property Of The Thing, whereas a Rabbit presumes that His Feeling About The Thing is automatically a Universally Present Property Of The Thing.  (2) An honest person understands that His Feelings About The Person isn't necessarily evidence that the person should change, or apologize, or even acknowledge his feelings, whereas a Rabbit presumes that His Feelings About The Person morally compel that person to change (if the Rabbit wants you to change), to apologize (if the Rabbit wants your apology), and/or to acknowledge his feelings (if the Rabbit wants acknowledgement).  (Worse, if the Rabbit wants your changed ways, apology, and acknowledgement but you only provide apology and acknowledgement without change, then the Rabbit escalates with humiliation until you change.  And if your change is only 92% satisfactory, the Rabbit will escalate.) 

 

In this article, Rollo unwittingly (because I doubt he's familiar with AnonymousConservative's work) describes the process in the beautifully-titled article "Just Get It". 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2012/08/22/just-get-it/

 

 

I usually have to control my laughter whenever I overhear an AFC in the crab barrel parrot back the Matrix-speak about how “good relationships are all about communication with your GF/wife.” When this is coming from a single guy I can at least partially excuse him for lack of any practicable experience, but when it comes from a married Plug-In it’s just evidence of the totality of his conditioning. Most guys who tell you this are repeating what their girl-friends always told them was the most important key to a good relationship, but as with everything femme there’s always a latent purpose underneath the veneer of aphoristic truth they sell themselves.

 

A few months back I was at a liquor event with my usual ‘pour girls’ and during our conversations one tells me about her ‘guy problems’ with a “clingy boyfriend” obviously on the down end of an SMV imbalance.

 

“It’s so frustrating Rollo, why can’t guy’s just get it?”

 

With a practiced, but cute, little wrinkle of her nose, and the huff of her $5K tits, my girl had just indirectly revealed one of the most vexing complexities of intergender communication – women want men to “just get it.”

 

Just Get It

 

From Female Dating Advice:

 

The guy with the capacity to call a woman’s bluff with a confidence that implies she is to be worthy of him rather than the other way around is the Man to be competed for. Essentially the ‘chick speak’, ‘chick advice’ phenomenon is a shit test writ large on a social scale. And even your own mother and sisters are in on it, expecting you to ‘get it’; to get the message and see the challenge for what it really is, without overtly telling you.

 

She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be.

 

Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shit test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

 

 

 

With an honest woman who is not a Rabbit, the Just Get It aspect will be ever-present.  And it'll be exhausting and annoying at times, but it'll be worth it.  But with a Rabbit, the Just Get It aspect will be eternally present and you'll never be able to please the Rabbit!  Because the goal of the Rabbit is to remain eternally displeased with you, so that you'll engage in long conversations that lead nowhere, unless you magically give the Rabbit 100% of what he wants in that moment. 

 

Yet even if you do that, within two days the Rabbit will be displeased.....

 

Personally, I am happy that learning Seduction helps me understand women and defend myself against Rabbits.  But collectively, I feel scared for people who only focus on Overt Words while assuming all such Overt Words are honest, without studying Sub-Text.  Such people are easy prey for Rabbits. 

[PGP]

As is my current stage of philosophical development (all over the place and limited), I have two contributions that I think may be of value. The first is from the book "The Fourth Turning" by Strauss and Howe. It is a quote from Walter Lippmann writing during WW1:

 

"We are unsettled to the very roots o f our being. There isn't a human

relation, whether of parent or child, husband and wife, worker and

employer, that doesn't move in a strange situation. We are not used to

a complicated civilization, we don't know how to behave when personal

contact and eternal authority have disappeared. There are no

precedents to guide us, no wisdom that was not meant for a simpler

age."

 

The second is from Stardusk. He delves into a theory for "contented irrationality". It goes into belief systems, immortality, tribalism, gender dimorphisms, stress response and a whole lot more.

 

[MMX2010]

It is a quote from Walter Lippmann writing during WW1:

 

"We are unsettled to the very roots o f our being. There isn't a human relation, whether of parent or child, husband and wife, worker and

employer, that doesn't move in a strange situation. We are not used to  a complicated civilization, we don't know how to behave when personal

contact and eternal authority have disappeared. There are no precedents to guide us, no wisdom that was not meant for a simpler age."

 

 

Hell yeah. 

 

TheLastPsychiatrist nails it in this article, enthrallingly titled, "When's The Last Time You Got Your Ass Kicked?" 

 

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/09/when_was_the_last_time_you_got.html

 

 

The Bully Dialogue-- where they spend ten minutes chatting nicely even though both of you know you're eventually going to get stuffed in a locker-- is another Cognitive Kill Switch, which is about reversing power and dominance.   The aggressive "Hi, what's your name, that's a nice shirt you got there" works because you're not willing-- you feel you're not allowed-- to respond to the situation for what it is: a bully trying to dominate the conversation.  You feel obligated to reply to their words, and not the meaning.  So the bully gets to bully the conversation for ten minutes, after which point it hardly matters whether you get stuffed in a locker or not.

 

There's a model for everything in childhood.  In this case it's when the parent, rather than a direct confrontation (i.e. teach the kid how to be a man) tries to lead and trap the kid, like a jealous woman trying to catch her man in a lie.  "So, Tommy, how was school?   Anything interesting happen today?"  At this moment everyone knows it's a trap.  Dad knows what happened, and Tommy knows what happened, and now Tommy knows that Dad knows,  but Tommy still has to say, "oh, nothing really, " all the while thinking, "oh, great, I got to play this nutty game now?  When I turn 18 I am so outta here."

 

 

You feel like you're not allowed.....that's the most frighteningly succinct way to describe the problem. 

[MrCapitalism]

TheLastPsychiatrist nails it in this article, enthrallingly titled, "When's The Last Time You Got Your Ass Kicked?" 

 

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/09/when_was_the_last_time_you_got.html

I don't have much to add to this thread, other than to mention that I've probably spent half of the last 2 days reading the entries in this blog.

 

The content is incredible.. very "Babelfish" I highly recommend it. Thank you for the link MMX.

[Kevin Beal]

There is an "if" before every "should." If you want X you should do Y. So it's not about shoulds, it's about making informed decision to get the results that you want.

 

Using your example: If you want to be correct and something is not an ethical issue, then you should not treat it as such.

 

Having an objective methodology to determine the validity of ethical theories doesn't create shoulds. It still comes down to "If" you want to be ethical/moral, then you should/shouldn't X.

Well, it's certainly true that you can't get a "should" without an "if", philosophically speaking. And I'll stop claiming to represent Stef's position (I may be mistaken). I'm just saying, that there are a ton of "should"s implied in everything we do, there is a logic to it, and it's of philosophical concern. In other words, we can, and often do, logically come to "shoulds".

 

UPB is one methodology that I think describes a good chunk of it, and praxeology is another, game theory, etc.

 

I don't think I've heard Stef ever tell anyone that they need to do X, like a particular thing, but rather he consistently gives principles and insight into what the logic or the evidence says. I don't mean "should" like how I think people should stop using the word "literally" to mean "figuratively", but with the "if" that you mentioned. An example from a recent video: ~"If you want to get hired in this tough economy, you should demonstrate that you understand what the company's goals are". This isn't ethics, and yet there's a "should" there, but there is also the "if".

 

I think, really, we're talking about the same thing.

[MMX2010]

I don't have much to add to this thread, other than to mention that I've probably spent half of the last 2 days reading the entries in this blog.

 

The content is incredible.. very "Babelfish" I highly recommend it. Thank you for the link MMX.

 

TLP is phenomenal.  His blog filled in so many of the empty spaces that FDR currently cannot fill. 

[Christopherscience]

I like option 3B with the variation; don't complain about so much as view them objectively, and, if you want - state your observations.

 

Look at the incentive structure for most women, and I think you'll see why there are fewer women in philosophy and strive for virtue in a libertarian kind of framework. Women are rewarded by, say, coercive redistribution programs - why (from their perspective) should they challenge those systems? Or, why should a mother give up spanking when it can produce withdrawn children which easy to manage before teenage rebellion begins?

 

Both examples are meant to underscore the short-term gain at the expense of long-term gain... and the incentive structure is such that virtuous women get a pass. I mean - how many people can see the connection between the economics of the socialist schemes and lower quality of life, and; the spankings of early childhood with the rebelliousness of teens?

 

Few people see the long game... especially without philosophy, and especially without a direct line of cause and effect. The distributed cost vs concentrated benefit of bad behavior obscures cause and effect for many bad actors.

 

So, why can't a woman, say, punch her significant other?  She was taught that real men don't hit women, and you never hit a girl... so... no direct cause and effect, no consequences for actions. Sure, her relationships might suck, but a hypothetical woman may never make the connection between vice and suffering. In fect, she may be rewarded by getting whatever she wants by going quick for power; using violence is very expedient... evil, but expedient.

 

So... 3B - don't reward bad women. Change the incentive structure of your immediate surroundings. Perhaps that will not change the world, but your little garden/corner of the world will be nicer.

 

I have to make a plug for MGTOW; stop making women so important to your life, especially the bad ones. Put yourself first. Do not center your life around women (gynocentrism) and that will change the incentive structure of your immediate surroundings... So that bad women get less reward from being around you.

 

And if you're lonely because you have no bad women around you, then perhaps look at the nature of your loneliness; why are women so important to you? Babies? Sex? The narrative of female virtue and the princess-to-be-saved? Perhaps maternal neglect which left a void in your life that you try to fill with romantic love to compensate for parental love (as was my case)?

 

I often say to people who ask "aren't you afraid that you'll die alone with this MGTOW/bachelor lifestyle?":

 

"No. And here's why I'm not afraid of loneliness; so long as you like yourself, then you are always in good company. Most people fear dying alone, but everyone dies on an individual basis, and dying in groups doesn't change the nature of death... therefore, unlike most people who seek external validation, and, necessarily, die individually - I will be one of the few people who dies in good company. It bears repeating; so long as you like yourself, then you are always in good company."